A6 Kegworth, Leicestershire
Loughborough Magistrates Court - 22.08.06
Following a protracted investigation, Press and TV Documentary exposure, an enforcement at a speed camera site similar to many across the County of Leicestershire came to trial.
Whilst fatal defects to the limit were vigourously denied, the Crown chose to discontinue the prosecution of a driver for exceeding the 30 mph lit limit of speed on the A6 at Kegworth.
HISTORY
Whilst assisting the Granada TV program - Tonight with Trevor MacDonald, Richard Bentley revealed - by way of example - the use of non-prescribed signing to terminate and repeat the camera enforced 40 mph limit of speed at Kegworth in Leicestershire.
Images from this location were used in the Granada TV production.
The Department for Transport (London) confirmed both the invalid status of the signing and that no authority had been granted to Leicestershire County Council for the use of such signs.
Statute has, since 1967, prohibited the Court from applying a conviction when signing has not been employed meeting the precise requirements of the Regulations and the directions of the Secretary of State. this legislation is intended to prevent miscarriages of justice when non-prescribed or misleading signing is employed.
When aired, a driver (who had on that Friday paid a fixed penalty ticket) viewed the program, he attempted to stop his cheque and went to the Police to have the conditional offer stopped and a Court hearing begun. We are advised that the Police had a very negative attitude to both the program and the findings of Mr Bentley and they refused to allow a hearing. This motorist still awaits justice for this prosecution.
In light of the Police attitude the Leicester Mercury were contacted and publicity undertaken to further expose the defects in order to have them ‘remedied’ by the erection of legal signs, and therefore to prevent any further defective prosecutions (See Leicester Mercury Article below)
Following this publication, it was established that the highway authority had extensively used such signing across the county. the County Council appears to have removed signs erected post a 2003 change in legislation. Signs and sites created pre this date would appear to have been left in situ and as far as we are aware, continue to be enforced.
Four examples of the non-prescribed Kegworth/A6 signing (including by default grey ‘ringed’ national speed limit sign are shown below:
CLOCKWISE FROM TOP LEFT:
Non-prescribed 30 mph terminal sign
Non-prescribed 40 mph terminal sign
Non-prescribed 40 mph repeater signing
Non-prescribed national speed limit terminal signing
In January 2006 a motorist came forward who was to be prosecuted for exceeding the 30 mph limit of speed, seeking to challenge the enforcement, his Solicitor Mr Rob Rode instructed RMB Consulting to investigate both the signing regime and establish the status of the limit of speed.
Formal enquiries were made of the Department for Transport regarding the history surrounding the use of the non-prescribed signs. These enquiries revealed that document exchanges and a written response on behalf of the Secretary of State response informed the authority of these defects as far back as 1998.
A number of documents were obtained, these are posted on, and can be examined at the Department for Transport Web Site, or viewed in full at the bottom of this page.
1. It appears that a verbal request to be allowed to use these signs was made at a
conference in 1998, LCC engineers were advised that the use of such signing would
not meet legislative requirements and were informed they should not to proceed down
this route (SEE DOCUMENT 1 BELOW).
2. Following this, a fax was sent to the Department outlining a number of reasons why
this design of sign would be beneficial and therefore by default a request for
Secretary of State approval for the use of non-prescribed signing was made
(SEE DOCUMENT 1 BELOW)
3. Inter-divisional memo’s from Heads of Department showed the DfT’s intent to
provided a united front and negative response on behalf of the Secretary of State
(SEE DOCUMENT 2 BELOW)
4. Internal consultation took place when Head of Department wrote to a Government
Lawyer who was redrafting this area of legislation in the new Regulations. He was
asked for the Governments legal view on the matter (SEE DOCUMENT 3 BELOW).
5. A response and instructions were received from the Government Lawyer (SEE
DOCUMENT 4 BELOW)
6. A firm formal written response was sent to Leicestershire instructing them not to use
this format of signing or prosecutions may be untenable (SEE DOCUMENT 5
BELOW).
In short:
a. The highway authority did not agree with the 1998 verbal rejection and wrote asking for
agreement/approval/authority.
b. The Department found many of the reasons set out for the use of this design of sign to
be ‘feeble or entirely spurious’
c. Government Legal advice to the Head of Department pointed out that yellow ‘borders’
around signing:
“(Was) Not the same as a backing board”
“The ring materially changes the appearance of the sign as prescribed”
“the yellow rim cannot be justified as a backing board”
The Department was advised to write to Leicestershire and inform them that in the view
of the Department (the Secretary of State):
“the bulls eye signs were not as prescribed and the yellow border was not
permissible ... speed limits indicated by this type of sign may prove
unenforceable:
The 1984 Act of Parliament makes it clear that only prescribed traffic signs can be used to indicated a limit of speed, when such signs are not employed, and / or Secretary of State approval has not been received: “no person shall be convicted” .
A site examination was undertaken and a number of issues disclosed:
1. Whilst the highway authority had been instructed by the Department for
Transport not to use such signs in May 1998, dating labels on the signs
showed that this design of sign had been manufactured in March 1999 and
erected post this date.
2. The design of sign had been used on the 30 mph and 40 mph limits of speed
in Kegworth and other villages. The 40 mph limit of speed had repeater
signing is of an identical design.
3. Both the 30 and 40 mph limits of speed are enforced by automatic camera.
4. The highway authority is a member of the Safety Camera Partnership
5. We are advised that If it is correct that the highway authority knew the signing
did not meet legal requirements when any enforcement was undertaken, it is
possible for a member of the public to make a complaint to the Police so that
criminal action could be instigated against it or it’s Officers for offences such as
misfeasance in public office.
7. A grey ring has been added to the national speed limit signs, if a yellow ‘ring’ is
not a backing board, a grey ring of the same proportions must also fall foul of
that defect, as such, the national speed limit also becomes unenforceable as
Statute prohibits convictions in such circumstances.
A comprehensive report, photographs and copies of the correspondences was submitted to the Court.
On 22nd August 2006, the Crown Prosecution Service discontinued the prosecution.
The report and associated documentation revealed the fragility or impossible nature of the prosecution, however, as in other cases, such a resolution minimises publicity and leaves many thousands of motorists subject to what we believe to be known miscarriages of justice.
To date no announcement has been made by the Crown as to any actions they intend to take to remedy this situation.
We are not aware of any complaint by the public to the Police.
Document 1:
DOCUMENT 2
DOCUMENT 3
DOCUMENT 4
DOCUMENT 5
